Sunday, November 18, 2007

RESPONSE TO THE SUNDAY PAPERS

Did you notice as you read your Sunday paper this morning that all the reporting about the political race was only about who was ahead in the polls, who had the most paid staff in Iowa, and who had the most money? There was not a word in our papers about what the candidates stood for, what they would do if elected, or any legislation for which they would work if elected. What is this?
Do the reporters and powers-that-be in the news business just want a fight? Do they ignore reporting what the voters would like to know in order to vote wisely? I also think that it might be stretching a bit for newsmen to say nobody except those with the most money are the only ones who have a chance. Or that we need only report on the "first three" as even BEING in the running. But these two statments have been said so much and in so many ways, that it seems to be taken for granted. But I wonder?

I promise more trees in the next issue----joy------Marian

3 comments:

Walter S. said...

I thought that the Las Vegas debate had an unusual amount of substance --- the candidates gave differing positions on social security, taxes, Pakistan, immigration, and other issues. The Fox News commentators this morning thought so, too. I agree that the policy comments should have been reported as vigorously as, for example, the origin of the "pearls vs. diamonds" question.

Kimmykay said...

I think they really look at the money (or mention it) way too often. I have loved all the debates so far. I am ready for the current President to be gone and a wonderful Dem. with that title.

I am one of Amy's friends. We just moved to Arizona. I saw your link and had to respond to a fellow Dem.

jim said...

The pundits seem to believe that money is the measure of the candidate and her or his relavance, leadership, popularity, etc. Where the candidate wants us to go is rather immaterial. I tend to think that their opinion of the public is that we do not want subastance that would require thinking on our part. Such information does not fit the headline or 30 seconds or so that it will get in braodcast news.